InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "Chicka chicka yeaaahhh."

S.I.G.-Newton (lawofgravity) wrote,
@ 2009-07-20 17:18:00

018: and no amount of therapy can hope to save his marriage
I don't see the point of offering any commentary on the latest assignment that's already been made several times over and exists in the common consciousness. However, I find myself left with one question that I have not yet seen asked: if we're not meant to be acting out a traditional, heterosexual family situation as in the mainland version of this simulation, then why the male-female pairs?

[Wendelin]

Hello. I don't believe we've talked much, if at all, before this assignment. However, we appear to be partners.

[/Wendelin]

[Annie]

Simon hasn't mentioned anything, but I'm sorry if you stopped by my room and I wasn't actually around like I said I would be. Not too long after we stopped talking, I remembered there was some work that I had to finish in the labs.

[/Annie]

(Post a new comment)

	Steve. brewskis 2009-07-20 09:22 pm UTC (link)
	whatever. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Annie. lawofgravity 2009-07-20 09:25 pm UTC (link)
	~~What are you~~ You know that I am not, nor have I ever been, capable of giving adequate relationship advice. Why didn't you go to someone like Toni? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Steve. brewskis 2009-07-20 09:29 pm UTC (link)
	Because Toni is like "toby toby toby" 24/7 and everyone else is either just as biased or involved. Sometimes I just want someone to listen. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Annie. lawofgravity 2009-07-20 09:39 pm UTC (link)
	I listened -- I simply had nothing to say about it. I'm sorry you found that so offensive~~, but have you ever thought about what I~~. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Steve. brewskis 2009-07-20 09:41 pm UTC (link)
	well that's a pretty shitty way to listen. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Annie. lawofgravity 2009-07-20 09:52 pm UTC (link)
	~~It's pretty shitty of you to keep on putting me in awkward~~ ~~You never listened when I said thatapoiwreujawf;elsdk;foji;oui;ljiklj~~ What more did you expect? I've been nothing but clear about my response in these sorts of situations. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Steve. brewskis 2009-07-20 09:59 pm UTC (link)
	wait, so it's okay to pick and choose aspects of friendship based on what you're "good at"? guess i didn't get that email (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Annie. lawofgravity 2009-07-20 10:01 pm UTC (link)
	Are you sure about that? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Steve brewskis 2009-07-20 10:05 pm UTC (link)
	what? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Annie. lawofgravity 2009-07-20 10:17 pm UTC (link)
	Never mind that. Please resume being ~~irrationally~~ mad at me. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Steve. brewskis 2009-07-20 10:20 pm UTC (link)
	no, i want to know now. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Annie. lawofgravity 2009-07-20 10:52 pm UTC (link)
	Please try to examine this situation, including the similar but less explosive situations in the past that I have referenced, from my perspective. If you still don't understand after a good ~~hour~~ bit of time, I will explain it for you. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Steve.

brewskis
2009-07-21 11:49 am UTC (link)

Okay so you say you don't give good relationship advice? IDK if I entirely agree. So okay you can't say "well I think you should do THIS" but you're like one of the few people I trust enough to tell me if I was being petty or irrational or bitchy or something and I will actually listen. or god how about just listen and give me some stupid "well that sucks" and "you have to do what's right for you" instead of a bitchy "i have nothing to say about my friend's issues"?

ok maybe you do have to explain it to me because I don't get what it is that i'm neglecting in our friendship

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Annie. lawofgravity 2009-07-21 02:40 pm UTC (link)
	Forget it. Forget I ever said anything. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	theeighththreat 2009-07-20 09:35 pm UTC (link)
	Does it matter? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	lawofgravity 2009-07-20 09:41 pm UTC (link)
	Not particularly, but I thought it was an interesting question. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	theeighththreat 2009-07-20 09:43 pm UTC (link)
	Perhaps it might have been, had it not come from the usual suspects. From you, it seems... ...tired, somehow. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	lawofgravity 2009-07-20 09:55 pm UTC (link)
	Sorry. At least someone thinks I'm predictable. Please feel free to pretend someone else posted the query and respond as such -- I'm honestly interested in your opinion. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	theeighththreat 2009-07-20 10:01 pm UTC (link)
	Tried to avoid that word, lest it become my catchphrase in our encounters. Honestly? Don't think it matters, on a wider scale. Personally, would welcome DuWell's view on the matter - it will differ hugely from my own, and may offer a better course of action from anything I -or any male- might propose. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

lawofgravity
2009-07-20 10:16 pm UTC (link)

~~If only others thought the same.~~

If I understand you correctly when you say "don't think it matters," I would agree -- the gender of the pairs isn't or shouldn't be an issue, now that they've been assigned. However, I have to wonder why it was considered in the process of assigning them.

I welcome as many differing opinions as can be given, and I hope Fanny's is one of them.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	theeighththreat 2009-07-20 10:35 pm UTC (link)
	Was it considered? You have noticed the pairing because you have a vested interest - for others, it is simply tradition. Don't blame the goldfish because it cannot think of the ocean. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	lawofgravity 2009-07-20 10:53 pm UTC (link)
	Playing to tradition counts as consideration. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	theeighththreat 2009-07-20 10:55 pm UTC (link)
	Not if it is, as I believe was my point, it is subconscious. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	lawofgravity 2009-07-20 10:59 pm UTC (link)
	Subconscious consideration then? However, you have a point -- for some, the disregarding of traditional gender roles takes a conscious effort. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	theeighththreat 2009-07-20 11:09 pm UTC (link)
	It is impossible to mount a defence, if you are going to claim that people are involuntarily being discriminatory. There ARE no gender roles here - thus, a male/female pairing is as valid as any other. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

lawofgravity
2009-07-21 04:09 am UTC (link)

You've caught me. I can't really get around either of those points, beyond saying that Quorum should have taken the conscious effort to consider what sort of statement about gender he was making, when the idea to make such an effort probably hasn't even occurred to him. However, I wasn't calling the male/female pairing invalid, so much as wondering if the fact that the pairings are almost exclusively male/female suggested that any other would be invalid.

It doesn't really make much of a difference in the end though, does it? I don't know why I even bothered to bring this topic up for discussion -- it was established in two comments that it does not, indeed, matter, but thank you for discussing it with me all the same. You've no idea how relieved I am ~~you're~~ we're not arguing, so thank you again.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	theeighththreat 2009-07-21 06:30 pm UTC (link)
	One quick question: was it me or some other factor that cause you to apparently lose your mind? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	lawofgravity 2009-07-21 08:09 pm UTC (link)
	Sorry, it was something else. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	theeighththreat 2009-07-21 08:25 pm UTC (link)
	A pity. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	lawofgravity 2009-07-22 12:06 am UTC (link)
	It'll come back sooner or later, and then you're free to cause me to lose it again. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	nakedgirl 2009-07-20 09:44 pm UTC (link)
	Idk, but hazarding a guess I would say discrimination against same-sex couples (concious or subconcious) on the part of the teacher, same as on the mainland. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	lawofgravity 2009-07-20 10:00 pm UTC (link)
	I wouldn't say it's discrimination so much as a result of heterosexist thinking -- an attempt to apply the norm to the whole, as it were. However, here we're not even meant to be simulating families, as far as I can tell, so it seems pointless to have such strictly male/female pairs. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

nakedgirl
2009-07-20 10:41 pm UTC (link)

Imho the results of heterosexist thinking are still discrimination even if the discrimination isn't intended with hostility, since it's in favour of heterosexuality over other sexualities.

Ia, it is pointless & goes against the gender neutral roles of supervillain/superhero, which this assignment is meant to be based on. Although, if every single pair is m/f & m/f then Quorom (or w/e) must have thought there was a point behind making them m/f & m/f, probably bc the thing to kidnap is meant to be a baby and the heterosexualist assumption is that a baby needs a mom & a dad. lol! Or maybe he grew up outside of Neopolis and dk how else to do the assignment? ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	lawofgravity 2009-07-20 11:03 pm UTC (link)
	Possibly. I think you have a point with "dk how else to do the assignment" -- as I said above, it might have taken a conscious effort on Quorum's part to disregard traditional gender roles. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	nakedgirl 2009-07-20 11:07 pm UTC (link)
	Y, ia. It's too bad, bc this is Neopolis and you'd think we'd be past the idea of traditional gender roles already, since we are def past traditional everything else roles. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	lawofgravity 2009-07-21 03:53 am UTC (link)
	Right. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	ugotsuperserved 2009-07-20 11:29 pm UTC (link)
	Because male-male pairs would be gaaaaaaay. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	lawofgravity 2009-07-21 03:52 am UTC (link)
	Not that there's anything wrong with that. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Stephen. goodneighbor 2009-07-21 12:02 am UTC (link)
	Hello Stephen Glass-Newton!! you do not need to worry! I shall take very good care of the fake child! (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Wendelin. lawofgravity 2009-07-21 03:51 am UTC (link)
	Might I ask what "very good care" entails? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Stephen. goodneighbor 2009-07-21 03:54 am UTC (link)
	I have made it a cradle!! I do not need to sleep. for some time, at least! do you think I should curse them pre-emptively?? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Wendelin. lawofgravity 2009-07-21 03:59 am UTC (link)
	Alright. You've given far more thought and energy to this project already than I have. I don't think that's necessary at the moment, but if you think the doll is in danger, I suppose you must use your judgment?. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	flycasual 2009-07-21 12:37 am UTC (link)
	Not to detract from your point, but I'm a female-female pair, boobear. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	lawofgravity 2009-07-21 03:44 am UTC (link)
	Really? Would you be offended if I put forward the assumption that perhaps your pair is comprised of people leftover from the general selection process? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	flycasual 2009-07-21 03:46 am UTC (link)
	No sugar, you're probably right. It's a random group, there's no denying it. Just thought I'd let you know all the same, considering the topic of your post and all. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	lawofgravity 2009-07-21 03:52 am UTC (link)
	Appreciated. (Reply to this) (Parent)